The Claim Manager vs Nagarathna
2025 Latest Caselaw 2204 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Claim Manager vs Nagarathna on 10 January, 2025

Author: N S Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda

                                      -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:1006
                                                MFA No. 1243 of 2018
                                            C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                  DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                    BEFORE
                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
               MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1243 OF 2018
                                     C/W
               MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9180 OF 2017
                                    (MV-D)

            IN M.F.A. No. 1243 OF 2018:

            BETWEEN:

                THE CLAIM MANAGER,
                SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
                COMPANY LIMITED.,
                JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN.

                BY

                THE MANAGER,
                SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
Digitally       COMPANY LIMITED,
signed by
KIRAN           No.302, 3RD FLOOR,
KUMAR R         S.S.CORNER BUILDING,
Location:       LADY CURZON HOSPITAL,
HIGH
COURT OF        SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE.
KARNATAKA
                NOW AT
                SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                5/4, 3RD CROSS, S.V.ARCADE,
                BELAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
                OPP:BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
                II M.B. POST, BANGALORE-560 076.

                BY ITS MANAGER.
                                                         ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:1006
                                       MFA No. 1243 of 2018
                                   C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017



AND:

1.   NAGARATHNA., AGE 47 YEARS,
     W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHARA,
     @ KUMARA,

2.   ASHA, AGED 25 YEARS,
     W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHARA,
     @ KUMARA,

3.   BHADRAMMA, AGE 72 YEARS,
     W/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA,
     @ PAPAIAH,

     ALL ARE R/AT MARAGODANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
     HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

     RESIDING NOW AT PRESENTLY
     JAYANAGARA, NEAR VIJAYA SCHOOL,
     HASSAN-573 201.

4.   PRADEEPKUMAR, MAJOR,
     S/O ERAIAH, KUDU
     MANGALORE VILLAGE,
     SOMAVARAPETE TALUK,
     KODAGU DISTRICT-573 126.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.T.JAGADEESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 & R-3;
    R-4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

       THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.10.2017
PASSED IN MVC No.1494/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL
MACT,   HASSAN,   AWARDING     GLOBAL    COMPENSATION    OF
Rs.6,76,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
                              -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:1006
                                       MFA No. 1243 of 2018
                                   C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017




IN M.F.A. No.9180 OF 2017:

BETWEEN:

1.   NAGARATHANA,
     W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARA @ KUMARA,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

2.   ASHA,
     LATE CHANDRASHEKARA @ KUMARA,
     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

     ALL ARE R/O MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     HOLENARSHIPURA TALUK,
     HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

     PRESENTLY R/AT JAYANAGARA,
     NEAR VIJAYA SCHOOL,
     HASSAN-573201.
                                               ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH.H.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   PRADEEP KUMAR,
     S/O ERAIAH, MAJOR,
     R/O KUDU MANGALORE VILLAGE,
     SOMAAVARPETE TALUK
     KODAGU DISTRICT - 583 321.

2.   THE MANAGER,
     SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     No.302, 3RD FLOOR,
     S AND S CORNER BUILDING,
     LADY CURZON HOSPITAL,
     SHIVAJI NAGARA,
     BANGALORE-560 013
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                              -4-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:1006
                                       MFA No. 1243 of 2018
                                   C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.10.2017
PASSED IN MVC No.1494/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION     AND    SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

     THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   JUDGMENT   ON  18.12.2024, COMING  ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM:   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA


                     CAV JUDGMENT

1. A claim petition was presented by the legal

representatives of one Chandrashekhara under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act contending that an accident

occurred on 02.08.2015 between a motorcycle and a

Eicher canter lorry, as a result of which, the rider of the

motorcycle i.e., Chandrashekhara @ Kumara was killed.

2. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has come

to the conclusion that the accident did occur as a result of

collision between a motorcycle and a Eicher canter lorry

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

lorry and since the lorry was insured, the insurer was

NC: 2025:KHC:1006

liable to satisfy the compensation and has awarded a sum

of Rs.6,76,000/- as compensation.

3. Aggrieved by this award, both the insurer as well as

the claimants are in appeal.

4. Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the

insurer strenuously contended that the occurrence of the

accident itself was doubtful and, at any rate, the Eicher

canter lorry that it had insured was not involved in the

accident and consequently, no liability could have been

fastened on the insurer. He placed reliance on the fact that

the complaint did not state the number of the vehicle

which was involved in the accident and this by itself

proves the falsity of the complaint regarding involvement

of Eicher canter lorry.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

contended that the Tribunal was right in concluding that

Eicher canter lorry was involved in the accident, since the

police, after investigation, have in fact laid charge sheet

NC: 2025:KHC:1006

on the owner of Eicher canter lorry, who was himself

driving the vehicle. He also contended that the eyewitness

to the accident was also examined and therefore, the

contention of the insurer regarding non-involvement of

Eicher canter lorry was untenable. He also contended that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was

inadequate.

6. As far as occurrence of the accident is concerned, the

Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the police have

laid a charge sheet against the owner of Eicher canter

lorry, who was himself driving the vehicle and this factor

by itself was enough to hold that Eicher canter lorry was

involved in the accident. The claimants have in fact

examined one Girisha as P.W.2, who stated that he

witnessed the accident. On the other hand, the insurer had

not adduced the evidence of any person to indicate that

Eicher canter lorry that it had insured was not involved in

the accident and though it was open for the insurer to

NC: 2025:KHC:1006

summon the owner of the vehicle and elicit from him that

his vehicle was not involved, it has chosen not to do so.

7. It may also be pertinent to state here that the owner

of Eicher canter lorry entered appearance and also filed his

objections. Though it was stated in the objections that

Eicher canter lorry was not involved, the owner did not

step into the box in support of his plea. In light of these

facts, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the

conclusion that Eicher canter lorry insured by the appellant

- insurer was responsible for the accident. Consequently,

the appeal of the insurer is dismissed.

8. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal

has recorded a finding that the deceased was aged about

50 years as on the date of the accident and has assessed

the notional income at Rs.6,000/- since there was no proof

of actual income. In such circumstances, it would be

appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by

the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for

the accident of the year 2015, would be Rs.9,000/-. Since

NC: 2025:KHC:1006

the deceased was aged 50 years, 10% requires to be

added towards future prospects and since there were two

dependents, 1/3rd requires to be deducted towards

personal expenses, which makes his income to be

Rs.6,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + 10% - 1/3). Consequently, the

claimants would be entitled to Rs.10,29,600/- (Rs.6,600

X 12 X 13) towards loss of dependency.

9. The claimants, being the wife and daughter of the

deceased, each would be entitled to Rs.48,400/- i.e.,

Rs.96,800/- towards loss of consortium. They would also

be entitled to Rs.36,300/- under conventional heads.

10. Thus, in modification of the award of the Tribunal,

the claimants would be entitled to Rs.11,62,700/- as

against Rs.6,76,000/- as compensation along with interest

at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its

realization.